Open moderation system : UPDATE

Ok so a few months ago i proposed an open moderation system on Anarcho-Punk.net. This proposition was accepted by the community after a vote.

see here:
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=3932

There was a problem with the system and it didn't work... until today... i *THINK* i have fixed the problem

So starting from today, all members who have 150 posts or more should automatically get access to the private moderation forum. This forum is used by moderators to make vote about the general management of the forum. Starting from now, all important issues should be debated only in this forum. This will avoid nasty debates that fill up the whole forum like it happenned with NGNM85 or Sludgefuck. It will also avoid abuse of the system (right now a user can register multiple account and vote many times on the same poll, the new system will prevent this form of abuse).

The "popular assembly" forum can be still used for minor issues of lesser importance.

The 150 posts requirement will ensure that no member can abuse the voting system, and i think it is normal that you must be involved in the website before taking part in the collective decisions. It will avoid that a member that just registered start voting to ban people when he have absolutly no idea of the story behind this ban. Anyway, it works the same in a shop, you must have worked some months before you take part in the syndicate.

The 150 posts requirement can be revoted at any time if you feel like it should be changed, but i know by experience that this is the best number. it will also help to let us time to get rid of the trolls before they can get 150 posts and access to the management section. We run two other anarchist forums that works exactly the same way (resistance.tk and pirate-punk.net), it has solved a lot of problem and avoided polemic debates to polluate the whole forum. But maybe we can lower the number to 125 since anarcho-punk.net doesn't have a lot of "big-posters"

- Next, we will have to make a vote to decide how long a vote to ban someone should last. Something between 3 to 5 days would be ideal. Must be not too short (to let the time to everyone to vote) and not too long (to avoid that the whole forum is saturated by fightings)
- We also need to determine the minimum amount of votes needed for a ban. It wouldn't be fair to ban someone if only 2-3 people participated to the vote.
- And more importantly, we need to determine how to take a decision (majority ? 60% of the votes ? etc..) This has already been debated here:

viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1745

To avoid future confusions, we should also define what is a troll. A troll is automatically banned by the moderators without vote. But the term "troll" isn't precise, it can be a lot of things. Maybe we should define a rule like "over X posts, a member can't be considered as a troll and can't be banned without a vote"

 

If you have 150 posts and can't see the forum, post here or send me a PM, i need to know if there is a problem with the promotions

Also, the promotions aren't automatic, i need to enable it manually, so the promotions will be done ONCE PER MONTH, usually in the beginning of the month. So if you just got your 150th post, wait a little before reporting an error.

 

I defined a quick set of rules to have somewhere to start. Here's what i posted in the mod forum:

 

I just finished a script that will display the last topics and new replys from the mod forum to those who have access to it. It will ensure to have high participation to the issues.

I will also rename the forum something like "Collective management forum"

 

yep good point, that's why i will also try to set another requirement where you must have been registered for at least 3 months AND have 150 posts to get access to the mod forum

 

Not really, nothing is planned in this system for that, you must have at least 150 posts to access the private section... But like Caps said, we always give warning before starting a ban vote...

But someone can just contact them through PM and ask them to defend their position. It will also avoid that the topic turn into a fight between the people targeted by the band and the ones that want to see him banned.... See what happenned with Sludgefuck... He registered again, he defended his position with his first post, but all of his other posts were just attacks against other members and bullshit.

 

No it always depends on the circumstances... Some things doesn't deserve a warning at all... For example if someone start promoting things that are against our charter... Some offenses deserve 1 warning, others deserve 2, etc...

Anyway, there's always a vote to ban people, so if the community think the user only deserve a warning they will vote against the ban....